Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, x x x judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of plaintiff covering the property in question and to deliver the owner's copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 271131 of the land records of Quezon City and actual physical possession thereof to plaintiff, and to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees x x x.
WHEREFORE, x x x judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of plaintiff covering the property in question and to deliver the owner's copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 271131 of the land records of Quezon City and actual physical possession thereof to plaintiff, and to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees x x x." [3] There being no appeal on the part of MARENIR, petitioner on July 25, 1990, filed a "Motion to Direct Branch Clerk of Court or Deputy Sheriff to Execute Absolute Deed of Sale" which was granted by the trial court. Subsequently, the branch clerk of court executed for and in behalf of MARENIR, a Deed of Absolute Sale, in favor of petitioner. [4] However, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, refused to register the deed unless the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 271131 is presented. Since the owner's duplicate of title was in the possession of MBC, petitioner requested the former to release the said TCT. MBC, through its statutory receiver agreed to release the TCT provided petitioner will pay it the corresponding value in the amount of P185,020.52. Petitioner refused to pay the said amount for the following reasons, viz: (a) that she had paid the total purchase price plus interest in the amount of P59,686.84, or a total of P192,166.22; and (b) that to require her to pay another P185,020.52 would be making her pay for the lot the second time. When the statutory receiver still refused to release the TCT, petitioner was left with no other recourse but to file a complaint for Delivery of Title and Damages against MBC before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-10200. On January 31, 1994, the aforementioned court [5] rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which, reads as follows: "ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Natividad G. Aragon represented by her Attorney-in-fact Modesto O. Aragon as follows: 1. Ordering the defendant Manila Banking Corporation and/or whoever its present conservator/liquidator x x x, to physically and actually deliver the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 271131, or if said title had been cancelled, to deliver the present owner's duplicate copy covering the lot involved in this case x x x to the plaintiff Natividad G. Aragon and/or her attorney-in-fact Modesto O. Aragon, within five (5) days from finality of this decision; 2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to transfer TCT No. 271131 in the name of Marenir Development Corporation, x x x, in the name of herein plaintiff Natividad G. Aragon, x x x without having to require the surrender of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT 271131 or its successor title should Manila Bank Corporation and/or its Central Bank conservator/liquidator refuse or fail to voluntarily surrender the title in question; xxx" [6] Aggrieved with the decision of the said court in Civil Case No. Q-91-10200, respondent appealed
G.R. No. 130380 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND GREATER MANILA EQUIPMENT MARKETING CORPORATION. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 130380 -
CaseG.R. No. 224515 - REMEDIOS V. GEÑORGA, VS. HEIRS OF JULIAN MELITON, REPRESENTED BY ROBERTO MELITON AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, IRENE MELITON, HENRY MELITON, ROBERTO MELITON, HAIDE* MELITON, AND MARIA FE MELITON ESPINOSA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 224515 -
CaseG.R. No. 103577 - ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A. CORONEL, ANNETTE A. CORONEL, ANNABELLE C. GONZALES (FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF FLORAIDA C. TUPPER, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT), CIELITO A. CORONEL, FLORAIDA A. ALMONTE, AND CATALINA BALAIS MABANAG, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ AND RAMONA
G.R. No. 103577 -